Protamine—The Journey from DNA to Heparin Neutralization to Gene therapy

Protamine is now well recognized as a key heparin neutralizing agent. However, protamine was discovered over a century ago, during experiments performed to uncover the secrets behind heritability. Although protamine was discovered as a highly charged protein, it did not receive the attention it deserved until the dawn of insulin era, when it was used to create the neutral protamine Hagedorn formulation. Based on the same principles, protamine was identified to neutralize heparin and has since been used successfully for many years in cardiothoracic surgery. More recently, its clinical applications have extended to gene therapy. In this historical sketch, the journey from the discovery of protamine, onwards to heparin neutralization, and up to its utilization in genetic modulatory treatments is detailed.

Comparison of the resonance sonorheometry based Quantra® system with rotational thromboelastometry ROTEM® sigma in cardiac surgery – a prospective observational study

Background Measures of the sonorheometry based Quantra® viscoelastic hemostatic analyzer (HemoSonics, LCC, Charlottesville, VA, USA) were compared with corresponding results of the ROTEM® sigma device (Instrumentation Laboratory, Bedford, MA, USA). Methods In thirty-eight patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery between December 2018 and October 2019, blood samples were taken after induction of anesthesia (sample 1) and after heparin neutralization (sample 2) and measured on Quantra (QPlus® Cartridge) and ROTEM sigma (ROTEM® sigma complete + hep Cartridge). Clot times and clot stiffness values were recorded. Clot stiffness values of ROTEM amplitudes (A in mm) were converted to shear modulus (G) in hectoPascal (hPa): G (hPa) = (5 x A)/(100-A). Additionally, time-to-results was recorded. Spearman rank test correlation and Bland Altman analysis were performed. Results Clot stiffness parameters of the Quantra correlated strongly with corresponding measurements of the ROTEM with r = 0.93 and 0.94 for EXTEM A10 vs CS and r = 0.94 and 0.96 for FIBTEM A10 vs FCS for sample 1 and 2, respectively. Quantra clot time correlated strongly with ROTEM INTEM CT with r = 0.71 for sample 1 and r = 0.75 for sample 2. However, Bland Altman analysis showed no agreement in all compared assays of both methods. The median time to delivery of first and complete results was significantly shorter for Quantra (412 and 658 s) compared to ROTEM sigma (839 and 1290 s). Conclusions The Quantra showed a strong correlation with the ROTEM sigma for determining clot times and clot stiffness and the parameters assess similar aspects of clot development. However, these parameters are not directly interchangeable and implicate that separate cut-off values need to be established for users of the Quantra device. Word count: 278. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04210830) at December 20th 2019.

Viscoelastometric Testing to Assess Hemostasis of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Infection by SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a high risk of thrombosis. The laboratory documentation of hypercoagulability and impaired fibrinolysis remains a challenge. Our aim was to assess the potential usefulness of viscoelastometric testing (VET) to predict thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients according to the literature. We also (i) analyzed the impact of anticoagulation and the methods used to neutralize heparin, (ii) analyzed whether maximal clot mechanical strength brings more information than Clauss fibrinogen, and (iii) critically scrutinized the diagnosis of hypofibrinolysis. We performed a systematic search in PubMed and Scopus databases until December 31st, 2020. VET methods and parameters, and patients’ features and outcomes were extracted. VET was performed for 1063 patients (893 intensive care unit (ICU) and 170 non-ICU, 44 studies). There was extensive heterogeneity concerning study design, VET device used (ROTEM, TEG, Quantra and ClotPro) and reagents (with non-systematic use of heparin neutralization), timing of assay, and definition of hypercoagulable state. Notably, only 4 out of 25 studies using ROTEM reported data with heparinase (HEPTEM). The common findings were increased clot mechanical strength mainly due to excessive fibrinogen component and impaired to absent fibrinolysis, more conspicuous in the presence of an added plasminogen activator. Only 4 studies out of the 16 that addressed the point found an association of VETs with thrombotic events. So-called functional fibrinogen assessed by VETs showed a variable correlation with Clauss fibrinogen. Abnormal VET pattern, often evidenced despite standard prophylactic anticoagulation, tended to normalize after increased dosing. VET studies reported heterogeneity, and small sample sizes do not support an association between the poorly defined prothrombotic phenotype of COVID-19 and thrombotic events.

Interaction of heparin and protamine in presence of overdosage: in vitro study

Background Heparin is used for anticoagulation during cardiopulmonary bypass. After weaning from bypass, protamine is administered to neutralize the effects of heparin and thus reestablish hemostasis. Rotational thrombelastometry has been shown to discriminate between heparin and other impairing effects on coagulation. We analyzed the interaction of heparin and protamine under different conditions of overdosage in an in-vitro trial. Methods Blood samples were taken from 17 healthy volunteers, separated, and spiked in vitro with heparin, protamine for heparin neutralization, an overdosage of protamine, and two dosages of re-heparinization to evaluate heparin effects under the condition of protamine overdosage. All samples were analyzed in a standard ROTEM rotational thromboelastometry device after intrinsic activation with and without addition of heparinase. Coagulation time, maximum clot firmness, and clot formation time were recorded. Results Heparin led to prolongation of coagulation and clot formation times in the test without heparinase. Adequate protamine addition normalized the test, and overdosage of protamine led to significant prolongation of both times. Addition of heparin in the presence of protamine overdosage normalized these parameters. Conclusion We reconfirmed that the ROTEM device enables discrimination of the effects heparin and protamine on coagulation and detection of the coagulation-impairing effects of protamine overdosage. Furthermore, we were able to show a positive effect on coagulation times by heparin in the presence of protamine overdosage. Because this was an in-vitro study, these findings need to be confirmed in vivo, requiring further research.

New long-term action insulin formulations obtained using polycations for heparin neutralization

Phenomena that occur between an insulin and four different positively charged polymers (protamine, cationic dextran, chitosan, and poliallylamine derivatives) were studied by dynamic light scattering and fluorescence measurements (using fluorescein-labeled polymers). These processes were compared to the reaction of polycations with heparin that is responsible for the neutralization of anticoagulant activity in blood stream.The nature of polycations interaction with heparin is electrostatic, while the interaction with insulin is more complicated.We observed that the presence of zinc atoms (and its complexing by nitrogen from macromolecules) is critical for insulin suspensions formation and stability. The differences between the nature of these two reactions were revealed. The highly immunogenic action of protamine present in long-acting insulin products makes it reasonable to develop similar systems based on the nonprotein polycations.

Amphiphilic multi-charged cyclodextrins and vitamin K co-assembly as a synergistic coagulant

Amphiphilic multi-charged cyclodextrin (AMCD) and vitamin K (VK) co-assembly for heparin neutralization & vitamin K supplementation synergistic coagulation.

The Clinical Utility of the Heparin Neutralization Assay in the Diagnosis of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) remains diagnostically challenging. Immunoassays including PF4/heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) have high sensitivity but low specificity. Whether the heparin neutralization assay (HNA) improves the diagnostic accuracy of the PF4/heparin ELISA for HIT is uncertain. In this study, to assess its clinical utility and evaluate whether it improves the diagnostic accuracy for HIT, we implemented HNA in conjunction with PF4/heparin ELISA over a 1-year period. A total of 1194 patient samples were submitted to the laboratory for testing from December 2015 to November 2016. Heparin neutralization assay alone is a poor predictor for HIT, but it has high negative predictive value (NPV): Cases with %inhibition <70% are always negative for serotonin release assay. It improves the diagnostic positive predictive value (PPV) of ELISA without compromising sensitivity: ELISA optical density (OD) ≥1.4 alone has a sensitivity of 88% (14/16) and a PPV of 61% (14/23); with HNA %inhibition ≥70%, the sensitivity remains 88% (14/16) and PPV is 82% (14/17). 4Ts score correlates with ELISA OD and predicts HIT; the predictive accuracy of 4Ts score is further improved by HNA. Interestingly, HNA %inhibition of <70% correlates with low 4Ts scores. Based on its high NPV, HNA has the potential to facilitate more timely and accurate HIT diagnosis.